Edward Snowden: Hero or Traitor?

[3rdnlng]

I see three. And all mention "treason".

 

And again...law and precedent say otherwise.

 

I guess your position is evolving, eh? This is what you had to say yesterday:

 

Posted Yesterday, 03:21 PM

"Neither. Just a stupid kid. It's not traitorous to release classified info to the media (China or Iran, that'd be another story. The Guardian? Hardly.) And it's not heroic to be an idiot, else this board would be full of Medal of Honor winners."

 

He released the information to the world. That world includes our enemies. This has been the basis of my entire argument with you and your Muppet twin. You can't say that it is ok to release it to a newspaper who will spread the word worldwide but it's not ok and in effect traitorous to release it to "China or Iran". Everything else you two have directed at me has been a bunch of huffing and puffing and flexing of muscles. What could have been a reasonable discussion turned into a bunch of name calling by you two. Nice work.

Edited June 14, 2013 by 3rdnlng

[GG]

 

2. a person who commits treason by betraying his or her country.

 

Is that the definition you are talking about? His or her country in this case was most certainly not betrayed by his disclosure of this information. His government maybe but his country no. The government has betrayed their own citizens by putting in a program that violates the 4th amendment and then pretending like it doesn't. Would people that voted traitor as opposed to her be more comfortable if the vote was patriot or traitor. He did what people before him have done - fought against an oppressive government. It just happens to be our own.

 

No, the definition I'm talking about i sthe one you conveniently left out:

 

1. a person who betrays another, a cause, or any trust.

 

Every so often a post comes along that makes me glad to visit here. This is one of those posts. Well put.

 

Would that cover suspension of habeus corpus or interning US citizens in detention camps?

[TakeYouToTasker]

I guess you position is evolving, eh? This is what you had to say yesterday:

 

Posted Yesterday, 03:21 PM

"Neither. Just a stupid kid. It's not traitorous to release classified info to the media (China or Iran, that'd be another story. The Guardian? Hardly.) And it's not heroic to be an idiot, else this board would be full of Medal of Honor winners."

 

He released the information to the world. That world includes our enemies. This has been the basis of my entire argument with you and your Muppet twin. You can't say that it is ok to release it to a newspaper who will spread the word worldwide but it's not ok and in effect traitorous to release it to "China or Iran". Everything else you two have directed at me has been a bunch of huffing and puffing and flexing of muscles. What could have been a reasonable discussion turned into a bunch of name calling by you two. Nice work.

The law cannot be applied this way unless you wish to criminalize investigative journalism. The natural extension of your argument is that there can be no non-criminal checks on government power.

[3rdnlng]

The law cannot be applied this way unless you wish to criminalize investigative journalism. The natural extension of your argument is that there can be no non-criminal checks on government power.

 

My argument with Tom was a narrowly defined one that he and Darin tried to widen. Tom was trying to say that a traitorous act was determined by who the classified information was given to. He then changed his definition of a traitorous act to exclude Snowden. This has nothing to do with the NSA's program and how it relates to the 4th Amendment. This has to do with a person employed by a company that was performing classified work for the CIA and purposely leaked some of that information for the whole world (including our enemies) to know. He may be morally right in doing so but by all legal standards that I can see, he committed an act of treason.

[K-9]

I guess you position is evolving, eh? This is what you had to say yesterday:

 

Posted Yesterday, 03:21 PM

"Neither. Just a stupid kid. It's not traitorous to release classified info to the media (China or Iran, that'd be another story. The Guardian? Hardly.) And it's not heroic to be an idiot, else this board would be full of Medal of Honor winners."

 

He released the information to the world. That world includes our enemies. This has been the basis of my entire argument with you and your Muppet twin. You can't say that it is ok to release it to a newspaper who will spread the word worldwide but it's not ok and in effect traitorous to release it to "China or Iran". Everything else you two have directed at me has been a bunch of huffing and puffing and flexing of muscles. What could have been a reasonable discussion turned into a bunch of name calling by you two. Nice work.

 

An important element of the legal definition as defined by Congress, is the term "adhering to the enemy." Adherence MUST be present in order to satisfy the charge of treason.

Edited June 13, 2013 by K-9

[section122]

 

 

No, the definition I'm talking about i sthe one you conveniently left out:

 

1. a person who betrays another, a cause, or any trust.

 

 

 

Would that cover suspension of habeus corpus or interning US citizens in detention camps?

 

For the first part:

That is why I asked is this the one you are talking about in my post, I didn't "conveniently" leave out anything.

 

The definition you posted is an extremely broad definition. Is it treason to lie to your wife? Is it treason to drive over the speed limit? Is it treason to call in sick when your not? All of these violate somebody's trust and don't even come close to treason.

 

 

As for part 2:

What? I enjoyed someone's post and said as much. I don't even understand your post as a response to his.

 

 

He may be morally right in doing so but by all legal standards that I can see, he committed an act of treason.

 

Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right.

-Isaac Asimov

[GG]

For the first part:

That is why I asked is this the one you are talking about in my post, I didn't "conveniently" leave out anything.

 

The definition you posted is an extremely broad definition. Is it treason to lie to your wife? Is it treason to drive over the speed limit? Is it treason to call in sick when your not? All of these violate somebody's trust and don't even come close to treason.

 

Considering that I said that the definition of traitor doesn't only include treason, I don't understand why you asked if my definition was the one that included treason.

 

As for part 2:

What? I enjoyed someone's post and said as much. I don't even understand your post as a response to his.

 

I also enjoy people who wrap themselves in the flag, but ignore/forget massive violations of the Constitution by titans of American history.

[TakeYouToTasker]

I also enjoy people who wrap themselves in the flag, but ignore/forget massive violations of the Constitution by titans of American history.

What in the blue hell are you talking about? Certainly not anything I've ever posted.

[PastaJoe]

 

This position is absurd. It is constructed on the supposition that government is a benevolent actor, not prone to use it's assumed powers in a retaliatory manner aginst it's own citizens; of which we have ample proof of the opposite. It assumes that the ruling class should be entrusted with all manner of powers, as long as both parties of our false-choise construction agree that they would like to have these powers, and that we should be charged with proving why they shouldn't have them, rather than them proving to us why they should.

 

When we relinquish the Constitutional protections of the Rule of Law in order to make it easier for the government to chase those we dislike, it also makes it easier for the government to chase us; and every new administration assumes the powers usurped by the prior government, and builds apon them in their own usurpation.

 

Government is not benevolent. It is a construction of raw power and violent force. Since it holds it's axe above my own head, I prefer to blunt it's weapons.

 

If you want to promote anarchy, that's your business. But you talk about rule of law and the Constitution, then complain about the legal program that was made legal by our elected officials, and have not been ruled unconstitutional. Until such time when they are made illegal by our elected officials or ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, they are legal. And if he took an oath to not disclose, he broke the law and should be prosecuted.

 

Your not liking it doesn't make the program illegal or unconstitutional. But you and he are free to break any law you want, just be ready for the consequences.

[TakeYouToTasker]

If you want to promote anarchy, that's your business. But you talk about rule of law and the Constitution, then complain about the legal program that was made legal by our elected officials, and have not been ruled unconstitutional. Until such time when they are made illegal by our elected officials or ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, they are legal. And if he took an oath to not disclose, he broke the law and should be prosecuted.

 

Your not liking it doesn't make the program illegal or unconstitutional. But you and he are free to break any law you want, just be ready for the consequences.

That's... not even a good strawman.

 

However, thank you for your blanket disclosure, stating that you're comfortable with any and all undertakings of the government; and any interpretation of the Constitution they give you.

 

Here's your sign.

Edited June 13, 2013 by TakeYouToTasker

[Azalin]

When we relinquish the Constitutional protections of the Rule of Law in order to make it easier for the government to chase those we dislike, it also makes it easier for the government to chase us; and every new administration assumes the powers usurped by the prior government, and builds apon them in their own usurpation.

I couldn't agree more. well said.

[dayman]

If you want to promote anarchy, that's your business. But you talk about rule of law and the Constitution, then complain about the legal program that was made legal by our elected officials, and have not been ruled unconstitutional. Until such time when they are made illegal by our elected officials or ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, they are legal. And if he took an oath to not disclose, he broke the law and should be prosecuted.

 

Your not liking it doesn't make the program illegal or unconstitutional. But you and he are free to break any law you want, just be ready for the consequences.

 

Some self-proclaimed constitutional scholars don't really care about these things...you see...never mind that it created a system of self-government...pay attention only to such self-proclaimed constitutional scholar's reading of certain provisions...do not pay attention to anything else...

[Rob's House]

I see three. And all mention "treason".

 

And again...law and precedent say otherwise.

 

It depends on his intent. If he passed it on to the Guardian with the intent (or knowledge) that it could be helpful in aiding the enemy he could be guilty of light treason.

 

If you want to promote anarchy, that's your business. But you talk about rule of law and the Constitution, then complain about the legal program that was made legal by our elected officials, and have not been ruled unconstitutional. Until such time when they are made illegal by our elected officials or ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, they are legal. And if he took an oath to not disclose, he broke the law and should be prosecuted.

 

Your not liking it doesn't make the program illegal or unconstitutional. But you and he are free to break any law you want, just be ready for the consequences.

You don't know you're talking about. All things are not presumed constitutional until the SC says otherwise. A better school of thought charges all branches of government with upholding the constitution. The Supreme Court has simply become the final arbiter by default.

[DC Tom]

If you want to promote anarchy, that's your business. But you talk about rule of law and the Constitution, then complain about the legal program that was made legal by our elected officials, and have not been ruled unconstitutional. Until such time when they are made illegal by our elected officials or ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, they are legal. And if he took an oath to not disclose, he broke the law and should be prosecuted.

 

Your not liking it doesn't make the program illegal or unconstitutional. But you and he are free to break any law you want, just be ready for the consequences.

 

You didn't make the same argument with Bush's equivalent surveillance programs. Ergo, you have less than no credibility on the matter.

[TakeYouToTasker]

You didn't make the same argument with Bush's equivalent surveillance programs. Ergo, you have less than no credibility on the matter.

It would have been a terrible, albiet consitent, argument even then.

 

Neglecting to give a carte blanche thumbs up to anything the government wants to do, because the government declares those things legal, is nothing even approaching endorsing anarchy.

[....lybob]

Do you have proof that it has been used as a weapon to harm citizens, as opposed to a method to protect them from those that would do harm to citizens? The government has many potential ways to harm citizens, but that doesn't mean they use them. We allow police to carry guns which could potentially harm citizens, that doesn't mean they will.

 

This program has bipartisan support and oversight in Congress, and they have said it has saved lives. I've yet to see any proof that it has been used as a weapon against innocent civilians. And don't give me 'by looking at phone numbers they hurt me' baloney.

Hard to have proof on a secret operation but lets look at some of the possibilities- insider trading, blackmail, corporate espionage, intellectual property theft, attacking political enemies, preempting protest actions, stalking, character assassination,- and while you may think of this as a government program about 70% of it has been outsourced.

[Rob's House]

Hard to have proof on a secret operation but lets look at some of the possibilities- insider trading, blackmail, corporate espionage, intellectual property theft, attacking political enemies, preempting protest actions, stalking, character assassination,- and while you may think of this as a government program about 70% of it has been outsourced.

 

This is why I have so much more respect for you and people like you, than the run of the mill partisan Democrat (or Republican for that matter) - I may not agree with you on many issues, but at least your concerns have to do with issues rather than political affiliation - and on this issue I do agree.

 

One aspect you mentioned that's been largely overlooked is blackmail. I'm not worried about anyone finding out what I post here or whatever porn I've looked up. My concern is that once people in power have access to all the phone calls, emails, websearches, FB posts, etc. then any time someone gets out of line or becomes a threat, those in power can use that info to silence or destroy them.

[3rdnlng]

This is why I have so much more respect for you and people like you, than the run of the mill partisan Democrat (or Republican for that matter) - I may not agree with you on many issues, but at least your concerns have to do with issues rather than political affiliation - and on this issue I do agree.

 

One aspect you mentioned that's been largely overlooked is blackmail. I'm not worried about anyone finding out what I post here or whatever porn I've looked up. My concern is that once people in power have access to all the phone calls, emails, websearches, FB posts, etc. then any time someone gets out of line or becomes a threat, those in power can use that info to silence or destroy them.

 

I posted in the phone records thread an article from yesterday how a defendant in a robbery/murder case is trying to subpoena NSA phone records for use in his defense. What a can of worms getting opened up.

[GG]

What in the blue hell are you talking about? Certainly not anything I've ever posted.

 

You're right you didn't, but you launched into the usual warning of Big Brother taking over government and taking away people's rights, when the four century history of this country shows a constant ebb & flow of government actions that trample over basic rights and Constitutional violations, yet only to be brought back in line. I cannot think that what's been going on over the last 12 years is worse than repealing habeas corpus or interning innocent citizens because of their birth legacy. Yet the country survived and got stronger. This is the flip side of the loony left who is perfectly fine in trusting everything that the US government does as long as it fits a warm and fuzzy narrative.

 

I'm too cynical to think that the government as vast as ours is actually ruled by a sinister force whose ultimate goal is to control every aspect of our lives. I think that the government is too big and is populated by way too many unmitigated morons, and any efforts to impose a dictatorial police state would would fail like a main course of retatta at Four Seasons. The checks and balances that were put in place actually work, and the dysfunctional two party system keeps everyone from wandering too far astray.

 

As to the NSA scandal, people still forget that you do not own your telephone number. It is leased to you by a private telephone company with whom you have a ToS to use their network to communicate. The number is theirs, the network is theirs and you agree to use the network to expedite communication. Your choice. You are perfectly free to walk over to your friend and have a private conversation. Once you pick up that phone and dial a connection you lose some of your privacy. The courts have been consistent that phone number data is not private.

 

We also had extensive discussions during the Bush warrantless wiretapping fiasco. The difference there was that they didn't get a FISA judge to sign off on the data. It didn't matter, because the Constitution gave Executive vast powers, and it's very likely that FISA would be overturned if it ever were to stand Constitutional review because it gives Legislative power over Executive rights. But, I kind of like the Legislative overreach because it keeps Executive in check.

 

That's how it's always worked over four centuries. One side oversteps, the other three smack it right back. Seems to have worked well so far.

[3rdnlng]

You're right you didn't, but you launched into the usual warning of Big Brother taking over government and taking away people's rights, when the four century history of this country shows a constant ebb & flow of government actions that trample over basic rights and Constitutional violations, yet only to be brought back in line. I cannot think that what's been going on over the last 12 years is worse than repealing habeas corpus or interning innocent citizens because of their birth legacy. Yet the country survived and got stronger. This is the flip side of the loony left who is perfectly fine in trusting everything that the US government does as long as it fits a warm and fuzzy narrative.

 

I'm too cynical to think that the government as vast as ours is actually ruled by a sinister force whose ultimate goal is to control every aspect of our lives. I think that the government is too big and is populated by way too many unmitigated morons, and any efforts to impose a dictatorial police state would would fail like a main course of retatta at Four Seasons. The checks and balances that were put in place actually work, and the dysfunctional two party system keeps everyone from wandering too far astray.

 

As to the NSA scandal, people still forget that you do not own your telephone number. It is leased to you by a private telephone company with whom you have a ToS to use their network to communicate. The number is theirs, the network is theirs and you agree to use the network to expedite communication. Your choice. You are perfectly free to walk over to your friend and have a private conversation. Once you pick up that phone and dial a connection you lose some of your privacy. The courts have been consistent that phone number data is not private.

 

We also had extensive discussions during the Bush warrantless wiretapping fiasco. The difference there was that they didn't get a FISA judge to sign off on the data. It didn't matter, because the Constitution gave Executive vast powers, and it's very likely that FISA would be overturned if it ever were to stand Constitutional review because it gives Legislative power over Executive rights. But, I kind of like the Legislative overreach because it keeps Executive in check.

 

That's how it's always worked over four centuries. One side oversteps, the other three smack it right back. Seems to have worked well so far.

 

I don't have any major disagreements with you or TYTT for that matter. I'm not understanding this 4 century thing though. Seems like I remember a bicentennial and I'm not that old.